We'll see if Republicans in control are anti-war, anti-elite, pro free speech, pro-working class, anti-large-corps, etc.
I know where I'd place my bets on policies.
Kamala never talks like just a normal person. My wife was telling me this this morning. You can't get through the facade. How on earth are you gonna know what she's really gonna do?
My wife was like- "I just don't see Trump being a warmonger, but Kamala, she very well could be."
And then you take into account what she has said and done (Cheney anyone?) and it's open shut case of who's less warlike.
It's not Trump that will be the "warmonger", it's the people he empowers. Trump is a shallow personality -- all he wants is attention, he does not have an ideology. For the boring part of actually enacting policy he defers to supplicants and this time around his supplicants are more unserious and self-interested than the first time around.
This is just basic 2nd order reasoning that it seems like so many people in this country lack.
This is not demonstrably true. He's had a consistent ideology since the beginning- MAGA and now MAHA too.
I used to think Trump was shallow, for maybe a few months in 2015. The problem with that is if you think Trump is shallow, it means all the people who voted for him and love him are stupid. In fact, you implied you think this:
> This is just basic 2nd order reasoning that it seems like so many people in this country lack.
Your operating philosophy cannot be that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
Your point about supplicants can be equally applied to Kamala.
I don't think people are stupid. I think they don't think things through.
MAGA is not a coherent political policy. Project 2025 is at least soundly documented and is probably the set of policies we'll see out of this admin.
I googled MAHA and it doesn't seem like a thing beyond a boilerplate website and twitter account nobody follows and some videos from RFK. Again, not a policy, just a platitude like MAGA and an unserious one at that.
OK then, think this through - Trump has said the parts of P25 he's read are stupid, he doesn't support it, and it's from a group of people who don't work for him (some of them used to but none did when it was published). It's bog standard DC think tank pablum that nobody cares about.
It's exactly what he did with Roe, trusted and subsequently empowered people whose ideology is stronger and, frankly, unaligned with his and look what happened.
It's unfortunate that on this issue most of the GOP is in the "never, ever" camp and most of the left is in the "any time, any place, for any reason" camp. We'd be much better off as a country if we allowed it before ~20 weeks electively, disallowed it after ~20 weeks unless the mother is about to die, and just moved on. That would keep us more liberal on this issue than 99% of Europe, still protect people from unplanned pregnancy, and result in net fewer abortions in the US.
> Your point about supplicants can be equally applied to Kamala.
Ah yes, the district attorney with a long political career is exactly same as the reality TV star.
And Trump does? He says absolutely insane things.
However, "normal people" don't run for president.
They will most likely break up Google and Meta for "pushing the woke agenda" but are smart enough to hide behind Lina Khan's anti-US-big-tech arguments that has populist support on both wings of the political spectrum.
Don't think they'll actually break up either of them in that case though; more likely use them as a boogeyman to endlessly dispute with so they appear anti-big-tech whilst doing everything possible to boost share prices of the same and similar companies.
Vance is Thiels man. And Theil wants to be a Supreme Court Judge.
They are pro-Israel and anti-Palestine.
They are pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.
Many of the republicans I know sit in a gray area in between, they definitely don't want us involved but they also don't have a strong opinion on the wars either way and see them as someone else's fight. That definitely isn't the main narrative I see in the media, but I personally know very few republicans who care strongly about one side of either war.
That view is a bit like a libertarian anti-war view in my opinion. Its antiwar without attempting to get involved in anyone else's business.
Expect the money to stop flowing to Ukraine, and to keep going to Israel, and try to divine a logic for that.
Maybe you just don't know enough Trump voters?
It’s always “your hypocrisy is worse than my hypocrisy” because even if they admit the hypocrisy exists (not a given) they just chalk it up to “both sides.“ We’ve seen this song and dance for a decade straight.
repubs aren't pro russia. they are just anti-getting-involved in there.
They sure are for the right price.
This only matter if we think that the Republican party still exists, and was not silently replaced by other party carrying its blood stained skin. Is GOP still alive? Is a serious question.
I have a lot of doubts about the real independence of republicans in this situation. The man at charge is obviously pro Russia and the republicans can't do a s*t about this. They will be replaced one by one. Anything that would try will be pushed out of the road.
I heard Mitch McConnell called a RINO a few weeks ago. That says it all.
1) Cult to the leader, Image printed on coins, posters, everywhere on TV and media. Fanatism
2) Religion serves the King. Divine intervention to justify power take. "God choose me in a divine mission to fix this mess" is a central part of the speech in every new monarch crowning. Trump is yet talking about that.
3) Exceptionalism and isolationalism, we are the best country and is cold and rainy out of my frontiers. Frontiers are very important for Kings as symbolic element of protection.
4) Extravagant behavior. Trump did all sort of outrageous things that would put anybody else in the jail, but got unscathed all the time. All kings do this. This is made to reinforce the idea of a special "superhuman" status.
4) Laws. This special status imply also that the law does not apply to the King and people will be carefully taught about that.
5) Killing competitors to the crown ("Hang Mike Pence" was metaphorical, but also works in a symbolic plane).
6) Wicht hunt behavior. As the King can't do wrong, scapegoats are required, normally on minorities.
7) Useful idiots. Extensive use of expendable pawns that are promised to enter the court, became famous, gain influence etc if they do a favor for the King. Those promises will never deliver.
8) Sucession. I would bet that the next elections will not have Trump as a frontman but a son of Trump will be the sure and only candidate. Every step will be taken to assure that not other has an opportunity inside the party. There will be a strong temptation and a lot of space to cheat in elections also.
9) And a component that is not still here, but I expect to see in the future is to disarm people that could pose a treat, weapon control but only for a part of the population. All Kings do this.
Of course, it took what, 70, 80 years of US influence to weaken the European armies to the point where we're highly reliant on them for defense, deterrence, tech and material. The Crimea invasion should've been the catalyst for the massively increased spending and prioritization of the military in Europe, not the 2022 escalation. I hope for Ukraine's sake that Europe has been able to catch up and restart production of equipment and that they can supply it asap, because after Ukraine it'll be Moldavia and Georgia, which already have pro-russian separatist movements / areas. Poland has invested a ton in updating their military at least.
I hope the US doesn't have veto powers to stop article 5 from being enacted if it does come to that.
They can't and they won't.
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-weapons-shells-european-unio...
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-ukraine-military-aid-2026/a-69...
Sending more munitions to Ukraine means it takes the Russian military longer to overcome the Ukrainian army by force of arms. The unstated aspect that is often glossed over is that this requires more and more Ukrainian men to be forced against their will to die for the territorial integrity of the country (because in 2024 the Ukrainian military is fueled overwhelming by conscription, not by volunteers). It's bizarre to me that is considered a "pro-Ukrainian" take. It's like egging on Paraguay during the War of the Triple Alliance to keep fighting, no matter if ~70% of your male population dies in the process. Just don't surrender!
Americans and Western Europeans cheer for Ukrainian sovereignty, but seem disinterested in Ukrainian lives. I think the bulk of Ukrainian men would rather trade the Blue&Yellow for the Russian tri-color, and keep their balls/legs/arms attached.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/39622
https://www.ft.com/content/b9396112-585a-4f7e-9628-13d500c99...
No. We don't want to be world police. We want to make money and grow our families.
Israel's diplomatic position would be much weaker if they didn't believe that the US would keep supporting them no matter what they do.
Why do you feel that Israel's diplomatic position needs to be weaker?
And how would the Palestinians' diplomatic position be, without the support of Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkey, Lebanon, Libya, Tunis, and the USSR and now Russia?
Gee I wonder why. Every single US senator takes AIPAC lobby money.
Most are anti palestine because Hamas is a terrorist. Sorry I won’t support terrorism and support what Israel is doing.
I support Ukraine because I know what Russia needs Ukraine for.
Do I want to see people shooting? No because I’ve been to war and seen how ugly it is. Sometimes you have to defend yourself though.
I still voted for Trump.
This just means you support State Terrorism instead of non-state terrorism.
> Sometimes you have to defend yourself though.
Unless you're Palestinian. In which case defending yourself isn't authorized. Just ask the West Bank residents being regularly killed by armed illegal settlers pre-October 7th how laying down their arms has worked out for them.
I'm suggesting murdering people at a music festival occupies the same space, morally, as bombing entire families with aviation ordnance. One of them is painted as wrong, and the other isn't, because state terrorism is tacitly approved in the Western mainstream information space....depending on the perpetrators. When Hamas (or Russia) does it, it's "kidnapping", when Israel does it, they are "detaining suspects". From August 2023 (before the Hamas attack) AP News was reporting Israel had 1,200 detainees without charges. Why aren't they called hostages? ( https://apnews.com/article/israel-detention-jails-palestinia... )
The two regions are both enclaves of Palestine, engaged in a joint struggle for emancipation. There were 100+ Palestinians killed in the West Bank in 2022: ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63073541 ) and 200+ killed in 2023 before the October 7th attack ( https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/08/1139922 ). Clearly disarmament and NOT being ruled by Hamas is not working for the West Bank Palestinians. I'm sure if you asked any of the various Palestinian militant groups, yes they are engaged in a joint defense of their people. After all, the primary purpose of the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation was to try to capture enough Israelis to force a prisoner exchange and get their own people back (similar to snatching Gilad Shalit and trading just him for 1,000 Palestinians). They suffered from "catastrophic success" mixed with undisciplined follow-on echelons (Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well as others) who inflicted far more civilian damage than just a cross-border snatch & grab....and they are definitely paying for it in blood now.
Then I'll address that. You are again, 100% correct. Bombing entire families with aviation ordnance would be abhorrent.
When the Gazans set out to attack a music festival, they did so with the explicit intention to murder civilians. When Israel drops a JDAM on a civilian home in Gaza, one of two things happen: Either the target is a high-ranking militant, and unfortunately the civilians he lives with (like everybody else, they have families) are collateral damage. Or, the target is military infrastructure in those civilian homes, and the home gets warnings to evacuate before the bombs fall.
Let's be clear: Israel has been willing to cause far more collateral damage since the 7th of October last year than beforehand. Every Israeli I know mourns the civilians killed as a result. I am certain that there exist Israelis who celebrate Gazan civilian deaths, I see them online. But nobody that I've ever met - and I served in a combat unit here - has ever felt that way.
If you really feel that bombing entire families is wrong, you should know that a rocket from Gaza fell not far from my apartment in November 2012. We had just a broken window, but other neighbours had far more damage and one was critically injured. The rocket fell where one of my daughters was playing just as the sirens rang - that siren saved her life and others.
This is a dishonest take. The innocent civilians now being bombed didn't do this. That you try to commingle them into Hamas' actions tells a lot about you.
22,000 bombs dropped in 6 weeks: https://truthout.org/articles/israel-used-22000-u-s-provided...
How many thousands of "high ranking" militants were there that had to be killed while with their families? Was no pattern of life analysis done to enable killing them outside of their homes? Let's just say 10,000 bombs were dropped on these high-ranking guys. That leaves the balance of ordnance of ~12,000 targets. So you are telling me Israel had TIMELY and ACCURATE intelligence on the locations of ~12,000 pieces of military infrastructure in Gaza....but couldn't anticipate that Hamas's attack plans were serious? That you know the location of damn near every RPG under some guy's floorboards....but couldn't rapidly locate and recover your abducted citizens in the same battlespace? I've seen the Joint Prioritized Target List for the Korean Peninsula and even though North Korea has been digging underground facilities since 1953, I don't think that List has ~12,000 targets on it, and North Korea has 330 times the land area of Gaza. And we KNOW that the targeting process isn't accurate and timely, because we get incidents like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c985y78d0g1o
Anyone who has planned aviation support and executed a targeting lifecycle can tell that this doesn't pass the sniff test.
> I am certain that there exist Israelis who celebrate Gazan civilian deaths, I see them online. But nobody that I've ever met - and I served in a combat unit here - has ever felt that way.
I served in a National Guard infantry battalion before I commissioned, and we definitely had a few sociopaths in our company. How does nobody in the IDF know anyone malevolent, yet we get a constant stream of self-incriminating IDF war crimes on social media?
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/i-killed-him-with-four-bu...
> If you really feel that bombing entire families is wrong, you should know that a rocket from Gaza fell not far from my apartment in November 2012. We had just a broken window, but other neighbours had far more damage and one was critically injured.
Do you feel that your neighbor was "just collateral damage"? Probably not, right? It's such a dehumanizing euphemism.
General terror bombardment of residential areas is morally wrong and even militarily stupid in my opinion. It's wrong when Hamas and Hezbollah do it, and it's wrong when the IDF does it. Whether that is Greater Israel or Greater Palestine, neither will accomplish their objective by blindly chucking ordnance at people's houses.
You can't possibly believe this when there are numerous confirmed reports of entire families being massacred with 0 hostages taken. If your purpose was really to take hostages; those could have been easy bargain chips; instead they raped them, murdered them and paraded their bodies in front of cheerful crowds.
If the central point of the operation was to grab hostages; their whereabouts and well being (or at least survival) would have been central to the whole ordeal; instead the were disseminated with little to no proof of life. It doesn't even appear that the Hamas leadership knew what to do with them, or even had them accounted for and located.
The goal of the attacks was to inflict a major blow to the Israeli government by forcing a strong military response that would delay the normalisation of the relations between Israel and other arab states. To do so Hamas was wiling to sacrifice civilian blood which is exactly what is happening now. They placed their hideouts in schools hospitals, and NGO headquarters to maximise the political cost of any military operation. Hostages were "nice to have" as they were supposed to further increase the pressure on the Israeli government by people who would be pushing for their return.
They did not anticipate how far BiBi was willing to go and they are definitely paying for it in blood now.
But this war specifically, not the conflict in general, was very clearly launched by Hamas.
Are you deliberately trying to conflate conflict with war to push an agenda?
Your heart is in the right place. But you've been manipulated.
No they weren't. Absorbing bombs when you have a missile defense system that ensures zero to tens of casualties, then responding with the same bombs when you know they will cause hundreds to thousands of casualties is doing exactly what I said. No one lied to me. I saw the facts and saw my money being sent to people who think this is okay, and like every other sane American, I said it should stop, and soon it will.
All of this was a decade ago, back when Israelis used to set up lawn chairs on hills overlooking Gaza and cheer as bombs dropped. Tell me how this was a lie too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer...
Look, all this aside, you're probably a nice guy. You're probably worried for your family.i get that. I've been there. But 20 years and trillions of dollars spent on wars that did nothing to secure us, nothing to change the region, taught me that fighting back isn't always the path to success. You have to fight right, and you have to fight smart too. The US had a ton of goodwill from the world after 9/11 and squandered it so bad that Trump, who has now been elected resoundingly twice as a Republican, said on stage, in front of tons of Republicans that Republican President Bush was one of the worst presidents and his wars were disastrous mistakes and we should have never gone. Cheney, who architected those wars, and his family, are now global pariahs basically. Lashing out and wasting money and causing more problems and expecting a wallet refill? I saw that for 2 decades, and I'm done with it here, and I'm done with paying for it somewhere else too
It's not realistic at all though. No country with the means to respond militarily would decline to do so. And no army in the world has ever disengaged from a conflict once casualties became asymmetric. If the allies did that in WW2, Europe would look very different today.
The most one can reasonably expect is general adherence to international laws, which includes the principle of proportionality. Even that occasionally becomes impractical, for example since Hezbollah disregarded UNSC 1701 and noone enforced it against them, it's not realistic to expect Israel to strictly comply with it.
None of this is true. The UK did exactly this in Ireland during the IRA insurgency.
Interesting that you end your comment with flimsy justification for targeting and killing UN workers and peacekeepers, which Israel is now doing.
You basically ignored most of my comment. I never said anything about morally right, I argued from the realism of the past 20 years of counterterrorism. It leads me to think you're not responding in good faith. Like I said earlier, I have seen and am no longer willing to support wasting billions of dollars on ignoring the root of terrorism, ignoring the diplomatic means which worked with other terrorist groups (IRA, Taliban, ANC, Irgun, etc.) Maybe one day you will too
I never said anything about UN peacekeepers, don't put words in my mouth.
The best explanation I heard recently was that Trump in 2016 made a play to pull working class Americans into the Republican party. The party basically clinched its teeth and looked the other way, knowing that they either accept the voters or risk a real problem. Since then the Republican party has largely embraced the working class while the Democratic party continues to favor more and more towards the rich voters and massive corporations, finishing off the full party flip.
Insane to say this when Trump and Republicans want to lower taxes for the rich and even suggest "abolishing the IRS".
You probably think the working class is just stupid.
I think the working class is way smarter than you think. If you genuinely explore that possibility you will understand clearly why Trump won.
Or, people have fallen for a demagogue selling them a cheap lie (it's not corporate America keeping you in low paying jobs despite massive productivity and profitability, it's those damn immigrants stealing your jobs!).
It's simply not true and we can go through every line item and add nuance.
> Trump going to bat for unions
Union jobs have been exported to other countries
> we'll see minimum wage increases
No taxes on tips
> maternal leave
Higher child tax credit, and generally pro-family
These things are not as simple as you make it to be. Maybe you disagree with Trump voters, but that does not make them stupid and gullible.
You mean like the one that democrats proposed and republicans in the senate killed?
Until the programs and benefits that the working class relies on are cut because "who's gonna pay for it?!" And "we've gotta reduce the deficit!". Then the working class will be directly and painfully effected because they are the ones that need tax credits and Healthcare options and foodstamps and support! Who's gonna pay for it? The people that already have enough! I understand the human urge to hold on to everything you have. But when did we stop caring about contributing to a functioning society?
> I understand the human urge to hold on to everything you have. But when did we stop caring about contributing to a functioning society?
I'd ask when we decided that a functioning society was only possible with a powerful government collecting and redistributing wealth. Neither are required in my opinion, though we likely couldn't be as centralized as we are today without large governments and taxes.
You need to reduce the need for tax money, not increase the amount paid.
So I don't want to immediately just dismiss the idea that Republicans are the party of "blue collar workers", and if they really can bring manufacturing back, they'll be heroes, but I'm curious how patient the base will be for it. If they really do cut $2 trillion from the federal budget, there will be big time economic losers. It seems like a geo-economic realignment to bring back manufacturing could take more than four years, and it seems hard to believe there won't be economic costs. will they be patient? Will that geo-economic realignment even help the current generation, and can they stay in power long enough to fulfill it?
But the judges he appoints do. And if his first term is repeated, he'll again just appoint the far-right judges that republicans hand to him.
You're right, some things will be left up to states and I think we'll see more state divisions and self-sorting of people among states.
On abortion, it will be interesting to watch republicans fight over trying to push a nationwide ban. Trump is savvy and powerful enough to squash that, probably.
Trump did in fact enable the judges who changed the law on abortion.
I was surprised to see Trump not entertain much war during his last term but I don't agree. Both parties equally entertain war and I fear any Republican anti-war this time will be pro-Russia and further destabilize the world.
> Working class party
I think the voters see it that way and it's a real win for Republicans since they're the opposite and get away with it for who knows what reason
> Pro free speech
I've absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion
> Skeptical of large corps
I'd love for that to be true but I bet they'll be just fine with any large corp that helps them remain in control.
And yes, the entire topic of religion has not only remained the same but perhaps gotten worse.
Trump is emphatically anti-war and he's dragging the Republican party kicking and screaming to that position. Just look at his relatively low-war presidency and his rhetoric on war throughout the years.
> I've absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion
Free speech? The Dems are calling left and right for censorship. The only person that has stopped it is Elon Musk, now a vital facet of the Trump coalition. I have no idea how you can make the case the Dems are the free speech party.
> I'd love for that to be true but I bet they'll be just fine with any large corp that helps them remain in control.
Again, this is something that the MAGA types are dragging the Republicans kicking and screaming. MAGA abhors big pharma, whereas Dems trust it. Was the opposite in 2008 or even 2012.
We like to discuss Trump so much, but a lot of this shift is actually the Dems moving their positions too.
trump is so anti-war he increased troop presence in the middle east while biden pulled out of afghanistan
Gonna need a citation for that one.
> while biden pulled out of afghanistan
That's ridiculous. By the time Biden came into office, the pull-out had been long decided. If anything, Biden inherited a messy situation because Trump had rushed the exit too much.
Granted, there is a good chance that she would be fired either way if Harris had won.
The Democrats think that by going harder right, the Republicans would stop calling them Communist.
They don't realize the accusations are pulled out of thin air to begin with. The Democrats pushing harder right won't quiet the right wing bullshit machine.
Is that why there were all the college protests? I had no idea college kids did it hoping that the right would stop calling the left communists.
Oh, wait, that __isn't__ why they did it.
They sent armed people in to round them up and destroy things.
The kids were protesting the Democrats because the Democrats have become the right wing party for those who dislike Trump. Foreign policy, economic policy, immigration, it's all right wing
Multiple people in this very thread are claiming the Republicans have more left policies on these issue.
Harris is a prosecutor cop. She also wanted to round up immigrants and toss them in camps: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-borde...
How is that left wing unless you're definition of left wing is "not Republican"?
The politician closest to the traditional values of the left wing is ironically Trump.
That's a made up story by right wing podcasters who sell boner pills.
For instance, here's the schedule for a socialist bookstore in LA https://allpowerbooks.org/ ... There's Zero idpol. Here's the books they're highlighting, https://allpowerbooks.org/collections/books here's a publisher https://www.versobooks.com/ scroll and read the titles.
Here's the upcoming schedule for DSA, https://dsa-la.org/calendar/list/ again zero. Nothing here https://jacobin.com/ either.
Then there's anarchist groups like the ones that try to prevent drug overdose https://www.ieharmreduction.org/ or feed the homeless. Here scroll through the Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/lafnb they give no shits about idpol.
It's manufactured presentation by right wing media celebs - a projection of their characters like Milo Yinnapolis, Andy Ngo and Oli London onto what they imagine the left is doing.
The right is full of loud bombastic personalities like Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Mike Cernovich, Baked Alaska, Cat Turd, Libs of Tiktok and all the plastic surgery ladened evangelical TV pastors dripping in make-up. It's just psychological projection.
Proceeds to quote wacko communist politics.
When I say traditional left, I don't mean far, academic, elitist left. I'm talking union, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Bernie Sanders types. Not academics who write books about the role of Cuban women in the Communist revolution.
You hilariously proved exactly my point.
Alright. We're using different dictionaries.
Sometimes Democrats are like "but I'm a woman" because their policies are otherwise indistinguishable from the Republican, ok sure. Democrats are just Republicans that wave a pride flag. If that's the claim than agreed.
The two of you maybe, not the OP and most of the rest of the world.
I know people who think this. I have them in my family. Doesn't mean it's correct
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/media/trump-strip-tv-station-...
The US government is under no obligation to CBS to give them airwaves to propagandize fake news.
Trump pulled out of the Iran deal, which pushed Iran to redevelop its nuclear program. Anti-war what?
Trump signed the abraham accords with Saudi/Israeli appeasement, which Israeli intelligence notes pushed Hamas to attack on oct 7 and launch this war. Anti-war what?
Trump withheld military aid from the Ukraine until Zelensky provided dirt on Joe Biden, which was critical for Ukraine's defense against Russia's aggression in Eastern Ukraine, leaving Ukraine weaker and invaded in full two years later, anti-war what?
Trump has threatened to jail his opponents and go after the press, free speech what?
Republicans have banned books, want to ban teachers and fire massive amounts of civil servants, free speech what?
Elitist party, Trump is literally a billionaire who is supported by other billionaires, some of whom he will put in his cabinet. His biggest two policy positions are tax cuts for big corps (elitist) and deportations of the lowest class of people in the US. But Dems are elitist?
I don't think there is much that they've switched on actually in the last election, other than Republicans convincing the working class that they're their party, something republicans have done on and off for many decades.
Simple facts: Trump had way less war than now. Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen. Dick Cheney supporting the Dems is a simple way to look at it.
Free speech: Random local Republicans have proposed all sorts of things, but Trump's circle is more pro free speech than the Dems right now. And Republicans as a party have stated free speech as a policy position. Whereas Dems state they want to "combat misinformation". They do not advocate free speech. There's even a clip circulating today where "The View" hosts call for cracking down on "misinformation"
Trump has literally been brought to a courthouse and had his mugshot taken and you're talking about "jailing opponents"?
Your arguments basically boil down to: "Trump bad, half country stupid" which is absolutely elitist.
If you cite Yemen without understanding that the civil war started in 2014, and the cease-fire started in 2022 under Biden, as a reason for why Biden is pro-war, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you.
If you think the guy who literally says journalists are the enemy of the people, the enemy within, and that that national guard or the military can resolve it, that he wouldn't mind if journalists get shot, that he'd take away broadcasting licenses, that he'll throw journalists in jail, that he'd bring the independent FCC under white house control, ban books, teachers and civil servants if they don't align with his views, is a guy who made free speech a genuine policy position, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you.
If I give counterpoints to your arguments and you paraphrase that by me saying 'trump bad, half country stupid', which I've not said, and then go on to classify that as elitist when the ENTIRE cabinet is envisaged to be (billionaire) elites with two major policy proposals benefitting elites and deporting the opposite of elites, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you.
So I won't.
That’s about as accurate as saying that I ”had“ less war on my previous job. As it turns out, though, the world doesn’t revolve around me, and neither around the US president. Other actors exist, and they make their own decisions.
I don’t know how to take your rambling around free speech seriously. Do you really argue that we should treat „alternative facts“ as valuable free speech? That we should support people actively deceiving others? Maybe, just maybe, when free speech collides with basic democratic resilience, democracy itself ought to win out?
> Trump has literally been brought to a courthouse and had his mugshot taken and you're talking about "jailing opponents"?
For an actual crime he committed. As it is supposed to be. Yet, he pushed for legislation to ensure he’s literally above the law.
lol, yes you are as important as the US president.
> maybe, when free speech collides with basic democratic resilience, democracy itself ought to win out?
Exhibit A of how libs now are against free speech^
> For an actual crime he committed
For "mislabeling campaign funds", something the DNC and Clinton was fined for doing but never criminally prosecuted. It's simply because people don't like Trump the actual thing he did doesn't matter.
That’s besides the point. The recent wars didn’t start because Trump wasn’t president, and that wouldn’t have prevented them.
> Exhibit A of how libs now are against free speech^
That… doesn’t relate to what I said. Well. I don’t think I want to continue this discussion.
Also, thinking that Republicans aren't just as, if not more, bought by the military industry complex is just sticking your head in the sand. The GOP is more adamant about funding Israel than Dems are
There was no party switch. Both parties love the money flow that wards create.
Trump is not a party; he's the only one against the wars.
Also, pro war party is a weird thing to say. Repubs in 2000 wanted to be the aggressors. Defense to Ukraine has thus far been pretty bi-partisan.
There are some issues where they haven't switched (eg. abortion)